Menjivar Lopez v. Casey et al

1
3:26-cv-00554-CAB-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOSE ROBERTO MENJIVAR LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEREMY CASEY, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-00554-CAB-MMP
ORDER GRANTING WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
[Doc. No. 1]
Pending before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241, [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”)], filed by Petitioner Jose Roberto Menjivar Lopez.
The parties filed briefings addressing the issues in this case. [Doc. Nos. 4–5.] The Court
finds it appropriate for determination on the papers. See CivLR 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons
below, the Court 	GRANTS 	the writ of habeas corpus and orders Respondents to
immediately RELEASE Petitioner from custody under the same conditions as his previous
order of release on recognizance.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner, a Mexican national, entered the United States in 2010 when he was
thirteen years old. [Petition at 2; Doc. No. 1-3 at 2.] In 2015, Petitioner was arrested by a
police officer in Yuma, Arizona who then transferred Petitioner to U.S. Border Patrol.
[Petition at 2.] 	U.S. Border Patrol detained Petitioner and served him with a Notice to
Case 3:26-cv-00554-CAB-MMP Document 6 Filed 02/06/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:26-cv-00554-CAB-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Appear, 	which 	charged 	him 	with 	being 	subject 	to 	removal 	pursuant 	to 	8 	U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). 	[Id. 	at 	6.] 	Immigration 	and 	Customs 	Enforcement 	(“ICE”)
subsequently released Petitioner on his own recognizance with conditions including
appearing at immigration hearings, notifying ICE of any address changes, and not violating
any laws. [Id.; Doc. No. 1-6 at 2.] Petitioner has applied for asylum, and his asylum claim
remains pending. [Id. at 6–7; Doc. No. 1-9.]
On January 16, 2026, ICE arrested Petitioner at an immigration checkpoint. [Id. at
7–8.] Petitioner remains in ICE detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). [Id. at 8.]
II. 	DISCUSSION
A writ of habeas corpus challenges the legality of a petitioner’s custody and seeks
to secure release from that illegal custody. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a district court may
grant a writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner “is in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” The petitioner bears the burden of
demonstrating that he is in illegal custody. See Martinez v. Noem, No. 25-CV-2740-BJC-
BJW, 2025 WL 3171738, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2025).
Petitioner argues that, inter alia, his detention violates the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment. [Petition at 12–15.] The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment
provides that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law.” 	U.S. Const. amend. V. 	“Freedom from imprisonment—from government
custody, detention, or other forms of physical restrain—lies at the heart of the liberty that
Clause protects.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). This protection applies to
aliens as it does U.S. citizens. See Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896)
(“[E]ven aliens shall not . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law.”).
“Courts have previously found that individuals released from immigration custody
on bond have a protectable liberty interest in remaining out of custody[.]” Valencia Zapata
v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV-07492-RFL, 2025 WL 2578207, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025)
(listing cases). Indeed, “the government’s decision to release an individual from custody
Case 3:26-cv-00554-CAB-MMP Document 6 Filed 02/06/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:26-cv-00554-CAB-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
creates an implicit promise, upon which that individual may rely, that their liberty will be
revoked only if they fail to live up to the conditions of release.” 	Pinchi v. Noem, 792
F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (cleaned up) (internal quotation marks omitted)
(citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972)).
In Valencia Zapata, the Northern District of California granted a TRO for a group
of aliens who were detained by U.S. immigration officials, released on their own
recognizance, and then re-detained by ICE without explanation. 2025 WL 2578207, at *2.
The court held that the petitioners had a protectable liberty in remaining out of custody and
thus had to be given notice and a hearing prior to being taken back into custody. Id. at *3.
The operative facts here are similar. 	Petitioner was detained by immigration officials in
2015, released on his own recognizance, and then re-detained in 2026 without notice or a
hearing, which violates the due process to which he is entitled. 	See Pinchi, 792 F. Supp.
3d at 1036 (finding likelihood of success where petitioner was released on her own
recognizance then re-detained by ICE agents without notice nor pre-detention hearing).
Accordingly, as Petitioner has demonstrated that his detention is unlawful pursuant to the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Court finds he is entitled to relief.
III. 	CONCLUSION
The Court 	GRANTS 	the writ of habeas corpus and orders Respondents to
immediately RELEASE Petitioner from custody under the same conditions as his previous
order of release on recognizance. Respondents are further ENJOINED from re-detaining
him without notice and a pre-detention hearing before a neutral decisionmaker.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 6, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00554-CAB-MMP Document 6 Filed 02/06/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3